BadEagle.com Header Image

 

Bad Eagle Journal

Coulter Says “Hindu,” not Indian

by David Yeagley · February 26, 2013 · 9 Comments ·

We’re grateful for small miracles.

Ann Coulter‘s latest article, “HISPANICKED GOP ELITE: THEY’LL RESPECT US IN THE MORNING,” contains a truly classic opening line: “Don’t anyone tell Marco Rubio, John McCain or Jeff Flake that nearly 80 percent of Hindus voted for Obama, or who knows what they’ll come up with.

The article is about panic Hispanics are causing the retarded Republican establishment, but, the use of the word “Hindu” rather than “Indian” is, in our opinion at BadEagle.com, one of the most important social victories for the American Indian in the last decade. Not that we consider ourselves in any way a factor of influence in Ms. Coulter’s choice of words, but, we nevertheless rejoice in the obvious triumph of courtesy rendered our fine red race by none other than the Great White Woman (who, of course, is a Cherokee Princess, or some such prestigious personage of essential ethnicity).

BadEagle.com has long fought for the historical name “American Indian” as the only legally valid nomenclature in English designating the indigenous people of America. I have published several articles validating this fact. I personally guard the very word “Indian.” Why? Let me remind the world presently, again: It is the American Indian who is named in the Declaration of Independence; it is the American Indian who is named in the Constitution of the United States. There is no other “Indian,” anywhere, that is entitled to that magnificent distinction.


A lovely young Hindu woman.

This honor cannot be shared by any other people. No other non-white people fought wars with the White Anglo-Saxon Protestants who created the colonies. No other people of color shed blood in war with great white United States of America from its foundations. (Indeed, no other people but the WASP and his Western European cohorts could have ever defeated the American Indian. The American Indian owes no loyalty or even racial sentiment to any other people.)

That large numbers of people from India should suddenly dominate the name “Indian,” right here in America, is wholly unacceptable. It is yet the lowest, but most poignant example of the perpetual war against the American Indian. The world is out to destroy our identity, to rob us of our dignity, our name, our race, and our existence. (I have personally experienced this same war. Forsooth, my lowest personal enemies attempted to establish the thought that I myself am not Indian–for which libel I sued them.)

I protested in 2004, when the National Museum of the American Indian displayed northern Pacific Coastal Eskimo, Inuit tribes, Alaskan Natives, and even Pacific Islanders as “American Indian.” In “The Smithsonian Redistributes Honor” I protested the inclusion of all indigenous peoples of North America, Central America, and South America as displayed in the “National Museum of the American Indian.” These peoples are not American. They have nothing to do with the United States of America. The American Indian, alone, does. It was our land that the American whites won by war. But then I noticed the anti-American liberal Communists, like Robert Redford and Teresa Heinz-Kerry, who boogied at the opening of the museum. I did some research.

Robert Redford had sold the documentary division of his Sundance Institute to George Soros in 2002, I found out. In “George Soros and the Sundance Kid” I protested the fact that, like the NMAI program, Sundance tries to make the “Native American Initiative” to include not only all the indigenous of the Americas, but all the Polynesians, the Africans, the Asians, and even the homosexuals!. The Sundance racists had proudly posted a YouTube announcing this intentional demolition of the American Indian, and boasted of their accomplishment. I called attention to it, and the YouTube was removed. More recently, the program promotional is toned down, less obviously racist, using the term “indigenous” to accurately include its non-American Indian interests.

But regarding the “Hindu,” people, I have demonstrated in more than one article that the name “Indian” is historically inappropriate for people from India.

Succinctly, the pertinent, historical Sanskrit word is sindhu. It means simply “river.” It was the giant river in the valley of which dwelt a mass of people. The Persians called the people who dwelt there hindu, with a harder “h” sound. By the time Marco Polo visited, the European records were kept in Latin. Thus, the Persian hindu became Indus. It was now the Indus River, to Europeans. And, in the Vinland Maps and The Tartar Relations (ca. 1247), the term “Indios” was used for the people. Eventually, Latin/Spanish cartologists designated the land occupied by the Indios as “India.” Thus, finally, in English, there came into use the word “Indian,” as someone who dwelt in the Indus River Valley.

However, in English, is so happens that, at the time Columbus landed in San Salvador (1492) the English term for people living in the Indus River Valley was still “hindu” or “hindoo.” In the 12th century, the Muslims called the land Hindustan.

Hindu simply does not mean religion. It means “river.” After the Muslim invasions of the land of the Hindu did “hindu” come to mean something other than simply the river people. Hindu meant not Muslim, and thus, “Hindu” gradually became associated with a culture of the people, which, of course, included non-Muslim religion.

And now in modern times, that large numbers of Hindu people should immigrate to the United States and Canada, and claim the name “Indian,” is the last nail in the coffin for the dignity and uniqueness of the American Indian. Google is confused. Yahoo is confused. The word “Indian,” in English, is utterly confused with the American Indian. In fact, the Hindu people and culture dominate the search word “Indian.”

I see it as the final attempt to rob the American Indian–now even of our name, our honorable name–enshrined forever in the Declaration of Independence and in the Constitution of the United States.

I say, people from the sindhu valley forever be called Hindu. This I say, in honor of my own race, the American Indian. Unlike the liberal-trained Indians who protest Indian sports mascots, I care about the honor of our race–and our name.


In these parts, there’s only one
kind of Indian.

Posted by David Yeagley · February 26, 2013 · 10:15 pm CT · ·

Tags: American Indians · American Patriotism · Asian · Bad Eagle Journal · Conservatism · Liberalism · Persia · Politics · Race · Religion · Western Europe · White Race




Read More Journal Posts »

9 responses so far ↓

  • 1 David Yeagley // Feb 27, 2013 at 11:30 am   

    I post BadEagle.com pieces on my FaceBook page, and there is an entirely different group of people who comment there. Sometimes, very important things are said.

    I should say, here, that I have the feeling that everyone in the world, every race, covets the American Indian–our identity, and even our name. Why this is so, I do not know. But, to me, evidence shows this is the case.

    The whole Hindu horde is another sociological wreck whereby they now assume our name–here, on our own land, in our own country.

    I don’t think this is necessary, and I think it is wrong, even though Hindu people probably are not intending to do this, but, I suspect that they are happy to do it, nonetheless.

  • 2 zephyr // Feb 27, 2013 at 12:07 pm   

    How do you suggest differentiating then betw ppl who live in India and ppl who follow Hinduism?

    btw, the model in the photo appears to be Western. No black hair, fair skin, aquiline nose.

  • 3 David Yeagley // Feb 27, 2013 at 1:42 pm   

    Hair looks black to me. Anyway, as in all “dark” countries, those who lighter complexion are usually the “royalty” or highest caste, as the Brits would say. In the case of India, the highest caste, I believe, was created by intermarriage with the Aryans–the Persians.

    Of course, Hindu chauvinists (patriots?) say it was the other way around–the Hindu invaded the outside world.

    That obfuscates the caste system, however. Somebody’s dark! Light comes from the Caucasian. Of course, again, all Hindu people are part of the Caucasian race, technically.

  • 4 David Yeagley // Feb 27, 2013 at 1:44 pm   

    Hindu is like “Jew.” When non-members use it, they mean the race, with or without the religion.

    A Hindu who is a Muslim is simply a Hindu Muslim. If practicing the indigenous religion, then just Hindu.

    If a Hindu has a religion other than his own, he must simply designate it.

    I don’t mind saying I’m a Comanche Christian.

  • 5 David Yeagley // Feb 27, 2013 at 2:57 pm   

    Is this better?

    Or this?

    Both high caste, yes. Also, both taken from a Yahoo search for “Indian” images. A lot of these “model” Hindu girls have British fathers. It is as if white brings out the best of the shadows. What can we say?

    Of course, there are the Hindu orphans…

  • 6 zephyr // Feb 27, 2013 at 9:35 pm   

    “Hindu is like “Jew.” When non-members use it, they mean the race, with or without the religion.”

    Not necessarily. Many, if not most, use “India(n)” to refer to the nationality or race, but use “Hindu” for religion.

    No one says they are a Muslim Hindu or Christian Hindu.

    I think you’re fighting a losing battle if you think you can change the nomenclature.

  • 7 David Yeagley // Feb 28, 2013 at 9:22 am   

    I’m working for what should be, not what might work.

    “Indian” is not a religion, very true. But, when applied to American Indians, it implies a distinct sort of spirituality and hocus pocus. New Agers delight in aggrandizing American Indian “religion.” Indian spirituality, native American spirituality, etc.

    This is another example of the contradiction and confusion caused by calling, In English, people from India “Indian” instead of Hindu.

    Ilana Mercer, a Jew (daughter of a rabbi), because she doesn’t practice Judaism per se, calls herself Hebrew, out of respect for communication.

    Yet, I cannot apply this procedure to the Hindu people. We’re fighting over a name. No other people normally call themselves “Jew,” let alone “Hebrew.” The darkies of the world who are currently trying to call themselves “Jew” are indeed speaking of a religion. They would never try to call themselves Hebrew.

    But two peoples cannot both call themselves Indian, not when one is a race (American Indian) and the other is a “non-religion.”

    In due time, the nomenclature shall change!!

  • 8 R. May // Mar 3, 2013 at 10:01 am   

    I agree, but I’d use “Hindostani” instead of “Hindu” for reasons of disambiguation. I expand on this and link to you here:
    The Nomenclature Problem: Indians

  • 9 AnitaRai // Mar 22, 2014 at 9:27 pm   

    Listen, I admire your spirit and your people, and you make some good points.

    But here is a fatal flaw in your argument: you guys are called Indians only because Columbus thought he landed in the East Indies, in Asia (where you guys ultimately come from in any case, as Mongoloid/Central Asian people. Just look at Mongols today, check out Geghis Khan et al… you are the SAME people. Which by the way means the aqualine noses are not really yours, but the Europeans’ own. They interbreeded with you, so much so that most American Indians (I can accept that term easily) have mostly other races in them, and hardly any American Indian. The high cheekbones are yours, though. Like all Mongolians.)

    If you think the REAL Indians envy you American Indians, then it shows how parochial you are. Everybody, it is true, admires your spirit and your bravery. But you guys never were able to live in anything more than tents, and you played no part in world civilization until 500 years ago. Which is one reason why so many of you were wiped out: you didn’t have the antibodies that most other humans had.

    You lived in honorable isolation, and that is respected. But realize that in the larger view, you were destined to be decimated one way or the other. You yourself are probably more European or whatever than American Indian. So you shouldn’t even be called an American Indian really. It is just a legal fiction that entitles you to tax free status, a place on a reservation and other such things.

    The memory of the American Indian should be honored, especially by those who live on their land. They are glad you were defeated so that America could be built by Europeans. No one wants to live in teepees any more. And everyone knows you all were called Indians by mistake.

    Don’t show your ignorance by claiming the mistake. Don’t you have your own names? Cherokee, Iroquois, Comanche, etc.? Those are cool names, and not mistakes, as far as I know.

You must log in to post a comment.